The Distribution, Population Status, and Wildlife Product Trade of Himalayan Musk Deer in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan

Home , Astor markhor, Chilas, Musk deer

Journal of Bioresource Management

Volume 2 Issue 3 Article 5

Fakhar -i- Abbas Bioresource Research Centre, Isalamabad, Pakistan, [email protected]

Thomas P. Rooney Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio, [email protected]

Afsar Mian Institute of Natural and Management Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan

Zahid Iqbal Bhatti Punjab Wildlife Department, Lahore, Pakistan

Jibran Haider Gilgit Baltistan Forest Department, Gilgit, Pakistan

Follow this and additional works at: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/jbm

Part of the Biodiversity Commons, and the Biology Commons

Recommended Citation Abbas, F. -., Rooney, T. P., Mian, A., Bhatti, Z. I., & Haider, J. (2015). The Distribution, Population Status, and Wildlife Product Trade of Himalayan Musk Deer in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan, Journal of Bioresource Management, 2 (3). DOI: 10.35691/JBM.5102.0030 ISSN: 2309-3854 online

This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CORE Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Bioresource Management by an authorized editor of CORE Scholar. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Distribution, Population Status, and Wildlife Product Trade of Himalayan Musk Deer in Gilgit-Baltistan, Pakistan

© Copyrights of all the papers published in Journal of Bioresource Management are with its publisher, Center for Bioresource Research (CBR) Islamabad, Pakistan. This permits anyone to copy, redistribute, remix, transmit and adapt the work for non-commercial purposes provided the original work and source is appropriately cited. Journal of Bioresource Management does not grant you any other rights in relation to this website or the material on this website. In other words, all other rights are reserved. For the avoidance of doubt, you must not adapt, edit, change, transform, publish, republish, distribute, redistribute, broadcast, rebroadcast or show or play in public this website or the material on this website (in any form or media) without appropriately and conspicuously citing the original work and source or Journal of Bioresource Management’s prior written permission.

This article is available in Journal of Bioresource Management: https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/jbm/vol2/ iss3/5 Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. THE DISTRIBUTION, POPULATION STATUS, AND WILDLIFE PRODUCT TRADE OF HIMALAYAN MUSK DEER IN GILGIT-BALTISTAN, PAKISTAN Fakhar-i-Abbas1, Thomas P. Rooney2 Afsar Mian3, Zahid Iqbal Bhatti4, Jibran Haider5 1Bioresource Research Centre, 34 Bazar Road G-6/4 Islamabad Pakistan 44400. 2Department of Biological Sciences, Wright State University, 3640 Colonel Glenn Hwy., Dayton OH 45435 USA. 3Institute of Natural and Management Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan. 4Punjab Wildlife Department, Lahore, Pakistan. 5Gilgit Baltistan forest Department, Gilgit, Pakistan. Email: [email protected] ABSTRACT

Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster) is an IUCN Red List Endangered species that reaches its western range limit in Pakistan, although its distribution or population size is unknown. Here, we mapped its distribution, described habitat preferences, estimated population sizes, recruitment and mortality, and reported the market values of musk deer wildlife products. We used two approaches: analyzing local wisdom (traditional ecological knowledge) through the use of questionnaires, and conducting confirmatory field surveys of selected areas. Questionnaire respondents indicated musk deer sightings in 28 of 84 localities; mainly in Himalayan dry temperate forests with >20% forest cover. There were an estimated 224-363individuals. When females were observed with offspring, there were often two fawns present, suggesting twinning. Hunting appears largely opportunistic, with approximately 20% of the population killed each year. Musk, skins and canine teeth are sold in markets. Future threats include future human population growth, growing awareness about musk deer product values and political instability.

Keywords: Density, population size, overexploitation, habitat, musk pods, wildlife trade, poaching, traditional ecological knowledge.

INTRODUCTION 1986; Roberts, 1997; Timmins and Duckworth, 2008). There are Himalayan musk deer indications of a decline in musk deer (Moschus chrysogaster Hodgson populations throughout its geographic subsp. leucogaster, Artiodactyla: range. The musk pod, present in males Moschidae) is a small (10 kg), stocky at rut, is harvested for extraction of built, primitive deer-like ruminant. musk use in the perfume and medicine Males lack antlers, and females have a industries (Homes, 1999). Musk deer is single pair of teats. It possesses well- considered Endangered by the IUCN developed canine teeth. Musk deer (Timmins and Duckworth, 2008) and once persisted in sizeable populations, is listed on CITES Appendix I. Musk inhabiting scrub at 2,100-4,000 m pods are illegally sold in the wildlife above sea level (asl) in Himalayas trade (Khan et al., 2006). Japan, for from Chitral through Gilgit, Baltistan, example, imported 170 kg of musk per Indus Kohistan, western China and year, mainly of the Himalayan origin Kashmir up to Tibet (Scully, 1881; (Green, 1986). The price of musk Stockly, 1928; Groves, 1975; Green, exceeds that of an equal weight of gold 38

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. (Khan et al., 2006). An IUCN- describing musk deer habitat sponsored workshop of wildlife preferences, c) estimating present researchers, naturalists and wildlife population size, d) estimating present technicians ascribed the Critically recruitment and mortality, and e) Endangered status to musk deer in reporting the market value of musk Pakistan, noting that there is no deer parts. We used two approaches: reliable information on its distribution analyzing local wisdom (traditional or population levels (Sheikh and ecological knowledge) through the use Molur, 2004). In this study, we of questionnaires; and conducting estimate musk deer population size, confirmatory field surveys of selected distribution and threats in Gilgit- tracts. Baltistan (GB). MATERIAL AND METHODS There are few population studies on this species in Pakistan. Study Area Schaller (1980) recorded the Raja of Gupus recalling that musk deer was GB (71-75oN; 32-37oE; 70,332 present in all ravines south of the km2, 1,000-8,000 m asl) consists of Gilgit River until 1947. Roberts (1997) towering snow-covered mountains, reported musk deer from Astor deep gorges and narrow valleys. The (Gilgit), Hushe and Drosh (Baltistan), fast running streams ultimately drain while Rasool (1998) suggested a much into the River Indus (Figure 1). The wider distribution of musk deer in GB. Karakorum, Hindu Kush and Himalaya Population estimates in areas adjacent ranges knot in the centre of GB and to GB suggested 120 musk deer in diverge in different directions. The 2002 for Neelum valley (Azad Jammu Karakorum and Hindu Kush have and Kashmir, Pakistan, AJK), with the northwestern and southwestern largest population of 22 animals in orientations, respectively. The east- Machiara National Park (Qureshi et al., west oriented Himalayas occupy 2004). Later estimates suggested 64 southern parts of GB. The Himalayas musk deer in the Machiara National receive more liberal precipitation Park (Qamar et al., 2008). A small during the summer and winter population was reported for Palas monsoon (mean annual precipitation = valley of Indus Kohistan (Kyber 180 cm). They are therefore greener, Pukhtunkhwa, KPK), where though no supporting Himalayan dry temperate animals was sighted, yet musk deer mountain forest, sub-alpine and alpine presence was confirmed from indirect forest (Champion et al., 1965). signs (Khalid et al., 1993). Northern parts (Karakorum and Hindu Kush) have scanty summer rains, We surveyed the most thinner vegetation and greater wind inaccessible ridges at upper limits of and water erosion. Climatically, GB tree line (Roberts, 1997), believing that falls in temperate zone. Winter large areas of steep mountain tracts, temperatures remain below freezing with favourable musk deer habitat and for most of the year. The human limited human population, may still population (0.7 million) is hold viable populations of musk deer concentrated in major towns along despite increasing hunting pressure. streams. Small human settlements, Our specific objectives include: a) groups of family houses and nomadic mapping its present distribution, b) camps are scattered throughout GB. 39

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. 3-5 trained field assistants walked independently through suitable musk deer habitat using available shepherd walkways, generally following the musk deer survey methodology of Qamar et al. (2008). Surveys were carried out at dawn (one hour before and two hours after sunrise) and dusk (two hours before and one hour after sunset) to match the crepuscular habit of musk deer. Field assistants were Figure 1: Location of GB and spaced 500 m from one another. They tentative location of different study counted the number of musk deer localities used for questionnaire flushed during the survey. They also analysis. recorded musk deer signs in the form of recent communal latrines, footprints Roads and walkways mostly run along and bedding areas. The GPS locations streams (Rasool, 1998). The people of the beginning and end points of each depend on livestock grazing and are transect was recorded, along with the highly attuned to populations of wild survey duration. animals. Growth in the human population and the development of Responses to 150 communication links is leading to questionnaires were grouped into 82 intensified agriculture, grazing and localities (Figure 1). Responses to each wild resource extraction. question were analyzed individually (odd information edited and questions Data collection and analysis left un-responded ignored) and generalizations developed for broad Following techniques area and total GB tract. successfully used by Abbas et al. (2013), we used both questionnaires The field survey area was and field surveys to gather data on calculated by multiplying transect musk deer. Our questionnaire length traveled by all the workers in contained questions about musk deer the group by the transect width (500 population size, herd size, lambing m). Numbers of the animals flushed or patterns and hunting pressure; the indirectly recorded (tracks around market for musk and musk deer parts; latrines, resting places, etc.) were and public awareness about divided by transect area to calculate conservation. Trained field assistants musk deer population density. Transect administered the questionnaire in early densities were pooled for calculation of 2006, using a structured interview densities for the 8 broad localities and process. After obtaining informed for GB. Population estimates were consent, field assistants interviewed calculated by multiplying density with hunters, herders and wildlife area of potential musk deer tract in GB enthusiasts throughout GB. using Google Earth Contour maps, after adjusting for possible We conducted field surveys in disturbances. Information on habitat 8 randomly-selected broad localities of and vegetative cover was recorded as GB during later half of 2006. Group of general observations and used for 40

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. inferring musk deer habitat with many charismatic species, preferences. including: snow leopard (Uncia uncia), leopard (Panthra pardus), lynx (Felis RESULTS lynx), fox (Vulpus spp.), wolf (Canis lupus), stone martin (Martes foina), Questionnaire respondents ibex (Capra ibex), Astor markhor or indicated musk deer sightings from 28 flare-horned markhor (Capra falconeri of 84 localities sampled in GB, giving falconeri), chukar (Alectoris chukar) constancy of 33% for musk deer and ram chukar or snow partridge presence. No musk deer population (Lerwa lerwa). was reported over some two-thirds of GB. Musk deer were recorded in Data received from the southwardly located mountains, with questionnaire respondents suggests a no populations in northwardly placed musk deer population of 224- mountains (Figure 2). 363individuals for GB during 2006 (Table 1; Figure 2). The largest musk deer population occurred in Dumot. Smaller populations occurred in Randu, Jutial and Jagot. Populations with fewer than 25 individuals occurred in Astor, Singul, Hanzal, Haramosh, Chilas and Khaplu. All other localities held very small populations (<10 heads). Transect surveys yielded a mean population density 4.97±3.47 SEM per 100 km2 for favourable musk deer tracts of GB (Table 2). Population density estimates for different broad localities ranged Figure 2: Distribution of between 3.39 and 12.97 musk deer per potential musk deer tracts and 100 km2. estimated populations for different localities of GB, as suggested by Questionnaire respondents questionnaire analysis. collectively reported 57 recent musk deer sightings between 2004 and 2005. Musk deer is distributed in the Group size ranged from 1-12 Himalayan dry temperate forests, individuals, with an average of 2.14 dominated by juniper (Juniperus spp.), ±0.43 SEM (Figure 3). Herds of 8 and Himalayan birch (Betula utilis) and 12 individuals were reported in two morinda spruce (Picea smithiana). Our separate sightings. We do not know sample sizes are too small to develop a whether these sightings represent robust wildlife-habitat association unusually large herds, or were multiple model for musk deer. However, we herds grazing fairly close to one observed the lowest musk deer another. Average herd size was the densities in the areas having <20% highest in Astor (2.42±0.61 SEM, forest cover. Areas with more forest n=15), followed by Gilgit (1.65±0.15 cover appeared to have the potential to SEM, n=22), Diamer (1.50±0.22 SEM, support higher deer population n=9), Ghizer (1.25±0.50 SEM, n=9) densities. Musk deer in GB co-occurs and the smallest in Ghanche (1.00, n= 41

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. Table 1: Summary of the information received on musk deer population, hunting and market prices of musk deer parts in GB through questionnaire analysis. For locality Ref. Nos. refer to Figure 1.

Population Locality Hunting Market Price (in thousands Pak (#) claims Rs.) Ma Name Ref. Nos. Min (#) x Musk (per 10 g) Skin Tooth Darel 6 5 5 2 10 Singul 11, 12 5 10 1 5-8 Hanzal 17 10 12 1 10 Jutial 39 30 40 2-3 6-8 Haramosh 43, 44, 9 15 1-5 5-12 47 Sakwar 48, 49, 8 12 4-8 5-10 0.5-10 0.5-4 50 Jaglot 51,53,54 10 40 5-8 9-10 Dumot 55, 56 100 100 1-4 5-10 Chilas 57, 60 6 12 2-5 8-10 Astor 62-64 8 25 1 5-10 Gudai 67 4 5 1 8-10 Ratu 71,72 4 15 1 5-10 Rondu 74,77,80 15 60 3 8-10 Khaplu 82 10 12 0 - 224 363 25-43

Table 2: Transect data on distribution of musk deer population in different localities of GB surveyed in 2006. Densities having common letters are not significantly different at the 0.05 level.

Locality Transect Sightings (#) Density (per Area Direc Indire Tota Name Ref. No. # 100 km2) (km2) t ct l Jutial 12.76±10.11 39 3 43.5 3 1 4 a Haramos 43,44,47 3 23.5 2 1 3 9.20±2.41ab h Sakwar 48,49,50 2 38.5 1 1 2 5.26±1.55a Astor 62,64 2 47.5 1 2 3 6.31±5.52abc Gudai 67 3 48.0 - 2 2 4.17±0.50ac Ratu 71-72 2 25.0 - 1 1 4.0±3.51abc Rondu 74,77,80 3 39.0 - 2 2 5.13±1.50ac Khaplu 82 5 206.5 2 5 7 3.39±0.54abc 23 463.0 9 15 23 4.97±3.47

1). Very large herds were reported for sightings documented during 2006 Skardu (6.50 ± 5.52, n=2). Of the 8 field surveys, a single musk deer was 42

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. observed in 88% (7 of 8) of cases, and exchange rates) per 10 g. The average only one group (of 2) was seen. musk pod weighs approximately 30 g (Roberts, 1997). People in the region Questionnaire respondents believe that musk has aphrodisiac recalled herd sizes being larger in the properties and effectively treats past. They reported seeing mean herd arthritis. sizes of 3.2±1.28 SEM (n =18) prior to 1990. This declined to1.38±0.26 SEM Deer skin is also available in (n=22) during 1990-95. Herd size some market places, especially in Gor, increased slightly to 1.45±0.18 SEM Harchu, Ramkha, Randu, Tormik, (n=29) during 1996-2000 and Shigar, Jaglot and Sakwar. The market 1.76±0.18 SEM (n=57) during 2001- price of skin was not readily available 05. for many areas, but was reported fetch Pak Rs. 500-10,000 ($USD 8-166). We were not able to directly Musk deer tooth (canine) is also obtain data on the number of fawns available in different markets for Pak born per female or the proportion of Rs. 500-4,000 ($USD 8-66) per tooth. breeding females in the population. It is believed to have some spiritual However, questionnaire respondents value. provided data for 27 family groups. They indicated that 7.4% (n=2) groups Questionnaire respondents contained one fawn, 85.1% (n=23) had indicated that the general public of GB two and 7.4% (n=2) had three has a high level of awareness about the (average=2.00 ± 0.075 SEM) fawns environmental issues. All the per female. No report contained respondents conveyed their concern sighting of more than 3 fawns. Fawns over the declining trends in wildlife were more frequently (86.6%, n=27) species, including musk deer. They seen with the female. Both males and regarded wildlife and natural females accompanied fawns on two vegetation of the area as important occasions (7.4%). natural resources, both for their aesthetic value and for supporting Questionnaire respondents livestock. reported a total kill of 25-43 musk deer during 2005 (Table 1). They reported DISCUSSION that most of this hunting is for bush meat. Musk pods, skins and tooth Distribution (canine) are considered as by-products of such hunting and are taken to the Musk deer are widely market, where these are sold. Firearms distributed over the southern are used for most hunting, though live mountains of GB in areas with traps/snares are also sometimes used adequate forest cover. Within this area, (especially in Dumot) for musk deer it is absent in the northern drier trapping. mountains where forest cover is limited. The distribution of musk deer Musk is available in all market reflects the habitat requirements places of the central and southern parts identified by Roberts (1997). However, of GB. Prices vary with quoted prices the distribution of musk deer in GB is ranging between Pak Rs. 5,000-10,000 wider than suggested by previous ($USD 83-166, based on 2006 authors (Roberts 1997, Schaller, 1980). 43

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. We have identified populations in the crepuscular in habit, and avoids Astor, Hushe and Drosh Valleys, and humans. Herders living in GB with a in the south-eastern mountain valleys passion for wildlife make ideal south of the Gilgit River. Our report informants, as they have a keen field partly confirms the suggestion of observation for their area. Musk deer Rasool (1998), indicating a wider population studies could make use of distribution of musk deer in a number transect surveys to cross-validate data of valleys of southern GB. This from local observers. extends the western-most range limit (Timmins and Duckworth, 2008). Musk deer have a home range of 13-22 ha (Harris and Cai, 1993), so Contour mapping of mountains the observed musk deer population size slopes actually occupied by musk deer of some 300 is a small fraction of what in GB proved difficult, and needs could be supported in GB. With some further investigation. GIS mapping of 50,000 km2 of musk deer habitat the southern mountains slopes of GB available on the southern slopes of the falling at 2,000-4,000 m asl suggests Himalayas, the area is capable of that some 12,000 km2 can possibly be supporting >200,000 individuals exploited by musk deer in GB. (Green, 1985). GB falls in the western However, about half of this area is not extremity of summer monsoons. At directly exploitable by musk deer. this limit, limited precipitation does Northern slopes have limited forested not support the rich forested vegetation growth and higher human exploitation. that musk deer require. We therefore infer that the total area of potential musk deer habitat in GB is Small populations of musk deer around 6,000 km2. Similar contour are reported elsewhere in Pakistan. A mapping of adjacent areas suggest that population of 120 has been suggested some 3,762 km2 is available for musk for some 1,400 km2 of musk deer tract deer in KPK (2,411 km2) and AJK of adjacent areas of AJK (8.6 musk (1,351 km2). deer/ 100 km2; Qureshi et al., 2004). No estimates are available for some This study provides the first 2,400 km2 of musk deer tract in KPK, estimate of musk deer population size and a study carried out in best musk and density for GB. Our data suggests deer habitat of Kabkot Nullah (Palas a population of around 300 musk deer Valley, District Kohistan, KPK) present over some 6,000 km2 of indicated presence of a small favourable habitat tract available in GB population (Khalid et al., 1993). (5 musk deer/100 km2). These estimates are independently derived The Dumot Valley (100 musk from two procedures, i.e., the survey of deer) and Randu, Jutial and Jagot (each local wisdom and direct field survey. with 40-60 musk deer) are the priority The estimates derived from two areas for future conservation of musk independent sources were in deer in GB. Astor, Harmosh and Drosh reasonable agreement. Future were areas that supported high musk population size monitoring could be deer populations in recent decades questionnaire-based. This would be a (Roberts 1997). However, these great advantage, as musk deer is valleys now support smaller musk deer challenging to study using direct field populations (<25 musk deer). Our studies. It lives on steep slopes, is study suggested relatively medium- 44

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. high densities and smaller populations deer. Questionnaire respondents for Astor and Harmosh, which we indicated that 85% of family groups believe is due to the limited available had two fawns present. This suggests musk deer habitat tracts in these twin births are frequent. This is in valleys. No previous population size or contrasts with Prater (1965) suggesting density estimates are available for that single births are more common in these localities. It is therefore difficult musk deer. Moreover, we can infer to say whether there has been a recent females play an important role in fawn habitat contraction, a decline in the rearing and protection. The occasional population, or both factors occurring sightings of fawns with both males and together. females together suggest an absence of agonistic male-fawn interactions. The Our data indicate that musk presence of 2 fawns per female deer is essentially a solitary species in indicates high natality and early fawn GB, possibly exhibiting territorial survival. This might be due to low behaviour (Figure 3: Kirchshofer, intra-specific competition given the 1972; Roberts, 1997). The reported low musk deer densities and low decrease in herd size from 3.2±1.3 predation pressure. SEM (prior to 1990) to 1.8 ±0.2 SEM (2001-2005) might indicate a recent We do not know the natural decline in musk deer population of GB. mortality schedule for musk deer in This trend equally persisted in 2006 this population. Our results indicate physical sightings (average herd size = that 25-43 musk deer faced human 1.2). predation in GB during 2005, which constitutes 8-14% of musk deer population of some 300. Human- caused mortality is likely additive instead of compensatory. However, further research is needed to assess the impact of hunting on the musk deer population, as present level of hunting pressure alone probably cannot solely account for the decline in musk deer population in GB (Prater, 1965).

Musk deer is not in direct conflict with man. It neither competes with livestock for food, nor is it a pest for agricultural crops. Local Figure 3: Frequency of populations have no special passion for sightings of herds of different size hunting musk deer, and foreign hunters for musk deer population in GB as seldom come to hunt in this remote, indicated by respondents of difficult terrain. Instead, most musk questionnaire. deer hunting is opportunistic and conducted by herders using firearms. The number of fawns Bush meat provides the primary accompanying each female or family motivation. Musk pods, skin and group can provide an indirect estimate canine teeth are then sold in local on the reproductive potentials of musk market, either directly or through 45

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. middlemen. We do not know what Canid Biology & Conservation, prices middlemen offer, other than 16, 18-24. these are adjusted depending on the sophistication of the seller. Champion HG, Seth SK, Khattak, GM (1965). Forest Types of There are some positive signs Pakistan. Pakistan Forest for the future of wildlife and musk deer Institute, Peshwar, Pakistan. conservation in GB. There is a high public awareness about wildlife Green MJB (1986). Distribution, conservation, an appreciation for status, and conservation of the wildlife and natural resources, and a Himalayan musk deer desire for developing eco-tourism. (Moschus chrysogaster). Biol There is also an absence of organized Cons, 35, 347-375. market hunting for musk deer in this region. However, challenges remain. Groves CP (1975). The taxonomy of The future growth and expansion of Moschus (Mammalia, the human population into the musk Artiodactyla) with particular deer habitat, the growing awareness of reference to the Indian region. J market trends facilitated by new Bombay Nat Hist Soc, 72, 662- communication links and mass media, 676. and political instability will expose musk deer to increased hunting Harris RB, Cai GQ (1993). Autumn pressure and negatively impact habitat home range of musk deer in potentials. A well-managed, carefully Baizha Forest, Tibetan Plateau. handled awareness campaign, J Bombay Nat Hist Soc, 90, combined with equitable use of wild 430-436. resources will be needed to engage local communities with musk deer Homes V (1999). On the scent: conservation efforts in GB. conserving musk deer – the uses of musk and Europe’s role ACKNOWLEDGENT in its trade. TRAFFIC Europe, Brussels, Belgium. KNCF provided funding for this research. Thanks are due to field Khan AA, Qureshi B, Awan MS guides, local herders and hunters for (2006). Impact of musk trade sharing their wisdom and providing on the decline of Himalayan field support. Research is dedicated to musk deer Mochus the late Mr. Ghulam Rasool, the great chrysogaster population in supporter of wildlife conservation in Neelum Valley, Pakistan. Curr GB. Sci, 91, 696-699.

REFERENCES Khalid U, Ghafoor A, Raja NA (1993). Musk deer survey in Kabkot Fakhar-i-Abbas, Rooney TP, Mian A Nullah, Palas Valley, District (2013). Gray wolf (Canis lupus Kohistan, NWFP, Pakistan. J L.) in Gilgit-Baltistan, For, 45, 125-128. Pakistan: distribution, abundance, and persecution.

Fakhar-i-Abbas et al.,: Moschus chrysogaste leucogaster in Pakistan J. Bioresource Manage. (2015) 2(3): 38-47. Kirchoshofer R (1972). The Musk Stockly CH (1928). Big Game Deer, Dragoco Report, Shooting in the Indian Empire. Gerberding, West Germany. Constable, London, UK.

Prater SH (1965). The Book of Indian Timmins RJ, Duckworth JW (2008). Animals, 2nd ed. Bombay Nat Moschus leucogaster. The Hist Soc Mombay, India IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version Qamar Q, Anwar M, Minhas RA 2014.3. www.iucnredlist.org (2008). Distribution and Downloaded: 16 April 2015. population status of Himalayan musk deer (Moschus chryogaster) in the Machiara National Park, AJ&K. Pak J Zool, 40, 159-163.

Qureshi B, Awan MS (2004). Distribution of Himalayan musk deer (Mochus chrsogaster) in Neelum Valley, District Muzaffarabad, Azad Jammu and Kashmir. J Biol Sci, 4, 258-261.

Rasool G (1998). Animals of the Northern Areas of Pakistan, BASDO, Gilgit, Pakistan.

Roberts TJ (1997). The Mammals of Pakistan. Ernest Benn Ltd., London, UK.

Schaller GB (1980). Stones of Silence. Viking Adult, New York, USA.

Scully J (1881). On the mammals of Gilgit. Proc Zool Soc Lond, 49, 197-209.

Sheikh M K, Molur S (2004). Status and red list of Pakistan Mammals based on Pakistan’s Conservation assessment and management plan for mammals. IUCN, Pakistan, Islamabad.